If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by Zeful

So fighters are supposed to be worthless compared to magic classes?

What? No. That wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying that Wizards and Fighters are different, radically so. It's hard to compare the two, so I didn't see where it was pertinent to bring them up in a discussion on Fighters.

Originally Posted by Kid Jake

Kill a PC's father? Well that's just the cost of doing business.
Steal a PC's boots? Now it's personal.

Please take everything I say with a grain of salt. Unless we're arguing about alignment. In which case, you're wrong.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by BootStrapTommy

What? No. That wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying that Wizards and Fighters are different, radically so. It's hard to compare the two, so I didn't see where it was pertinent to bring them up in a discussion on Fighters.

They are only different thematically. In 3.5 where the discussion can be quantified mathematically, it's only a different term. Math terms are always fully comparable.

Your previous statements, both in terms of what a fighter should be (wholly mundane) and in regards to criticism are pretty archetypical of people who believe, in a game of mathematically enforced make believe, anyone that doesn't want to control the fabric of the universe deserves to suck.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by Zeful

They are only different thematically. In 3.5 where the discussion can be quantified mathematically, it's only a different term. Math terms are always fully comparable.

Your previous statements, both in terms of what a fighter should be (wholly mundane) and in regards to criticism are pretty archetypical of people who believe, in a game of mathematically enforced make believe, anyone that doesn't want to control the fabric of the universe deserves to suck.

What the flying fuccati are you talking about? I gave a description of what a Fighter would typically be like at each level based roughly on the capacity of the Fighter class at each point and on how i thought that mapped to modern archtypes. A level 20 fighter is almost epic. An almost epic character could do some pretty crazy things. Action heroes doe crazy things. The two equated to me. kardar233 brought up that wizards could do such things at lower levels.

My response was that they have magic to aid them. Wizards are a different ball game. They maybe able to some great action hero like things at lower levels, but they are also incapable of just as many action hero type action as they are capable of because of what they are physically. The Fighter does all of it at those higher levels because he is physically capable of it. His body lets him do it. A wizard isn't, he just has magic to make him capable of this. Where the hell you got the tangent you're on from that, I do not know.

Originally Posted by Kid Jake

Kill a PC's father? Well that's just the cost of doing business.
Steal a PC's boots? Now it's personal.

Please take everything I say with a grain of salt. Unless we're arguing about alignment. In which case, you're wrong.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I don't think a fighter should be anything. The existence of the class seems of questionable value to me, because while fighters need abilities to be useful, balanced and interesting, whatever abilities you give them will always cause them to break from somebody's conception of "fighter." The issue is, in essence, that fighter is too broad of a concept. Better to have a variety of class options, each with a clear set of mechanical concepts in play, and avoid calling any of them "fighter."

Now, what should a wizard be? That seems like a contingent question to me. My first instinct is that the answer is pretty much the same — the reason wizards have to be too powerful is the same as the reason why fighters have to suck. Both concepts cover too much territory, save that one covers it by exclusion and the other by inclusion. Both need to be broken up into smaller, better-contained units with a clearer scope.

Originally Posted by KKL

D&D is its own momentum and does its own fantasy. It emulates itself in an incestuous mess.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by BootStrapTommy

What the flying fuccati are you talking about? I gave a description of what a Fighter would typically be like at each level based roughly on the capacity of the Fighter class at each point and on how i thought that mapped to modern archtypes. A level 20 fighter is almost epic. An almost epic character could do some pretty crazy things. Action heroes doe crazy things. The two equated to me. kardar233 brought up that wizards could do such things at lower levels.

My response was that they have magic to aid them. Wizards are a different ball game. They maybe able to some great action hero like things at lower levels, but they are also incapable of just as many action hero type action as they are capable of because of what they are physically. The Fighter does all of it at those higher levels because he is physically capable of it. His body lets him do it. A wizard isn't, he just has magic to make him capable of this. Where the hell you got the tangent you're on from that, I do not know.

Then I'll dispense with the airs and put it simply: John McClain is not capable of meaningfully threatening a level 10 wizard, your analogy for what fighters should be capable of only works if Fighters are to be useless in high level play.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

The problem? No. My friend, we're talking about Fighters. Not Wizards. Why would you bring a Wizard into the discussion? Of course a Wizard could do that.

THEY HAVE MAGIC.

Originally Posted by from the other thread

Basically they are what's left over when you subtract every other class from the mix. If they are not a [Every other base and NPC class] then they are a Fighter.

Right here? These quotes more or less encapsulate the "fighters do not get nice things" mentality I'd like to finally abandon.

I have lost all respect for the "because MAGIC!" approach to D&D classes. If we can't stretch our imaginations to encapsulate near-mystical feats of arms and give Fighters similar degrees of player fiat to that which spellcasters enjoy, I don't see the point of having mundane characters at all.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by gkathellar

I don't think a fighter should be anything. The existence of the class seems of questionable value to me, because while fighters need abilities to be useful, balanced and interesting, whatever abilities you give them will always cause them to break from somebody's conception of "fighter." The issue is, in essence, that fighter is too broad of a concept. Better to have a variety of class options, each with a clear set of mechanical concepts in play, and avoid calling any of them "fighter."

Now, what should a wizard be? That seems like a contingent question to me. My first instinct is that the answer is pretty much the same — the reason wizards have to be too powerful is the same as the reason why fighters have to suck. Both concepts cover too much territory, save that one covers it by exclusion and the other by inclusion. Both need to be broken up into smaller, better-contained units with a clearer scope.

QFT. If there is a fighter class, then it should be broken up into multiple styles and archetypes, and there shouldn't be a "basic fighter". There is the zweihander duelist, the two-handed axe/hammer brute, the polearm master, the sword-and-shield defender, and the axe-and-shield vanguard, and they all share the same chassis (BAB, saving throws, hit dice), but there is not a "basic fighter". Those archetypes I listed can come from the current fighter with a specific selection of feats, but that shouldn't be the case. You could just as easily take Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Rapier, and Improved Unarmed Strike, but that shouldn't be from the class. Sure, with the new fighter, you can take the Vanguard archetype and take Weapon Focus: Rapier for style points, but you won't be as effective as if you used an axe, and most importantly, it tells you so. You can be half-decent, you'll still get the Vanguard's speed boost and charging features, but you won't get the +attack bonus you would've if you'd grabbed an axe.

Ultimately, though, I dislike class systems for anything other than quick character creation for a casual game.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I saw a group of videos in a post addressing this exact thing. I only remember the final battle from Samurai Champloo being listed as Level 10.

Now are we talking about what a fighter according to D&D rules is at those levels, or what a fighter should be?

IMO:What Fighters Are: At levels 1-5, a credible threat to all opponents. After that, becoming more and more useless with increasingly marginal abilities that result in a Level 20 fighter being able to dish out (and take) barely more damage than a level 5 fighter, whereas his opponents can slaughter him at any level. At level 20, the 3.5 core fighter is paltry. Multiclassing (eg. into a Horizon Walker) and feats and races from outside core can fix that.

What Fighters Should Be:
Level 1: Ramza the squire, at the beginning of FFT. Can take on basic enemies in groups, and other basic warriors 1 on 1.

Level 5: The Shadow of the Colossus protagonist. Can go toe-to-toe with a Dire Lion (where in RL regular lions kill people dead).

Level 10: This quote: "I've seen this kind of fire-breathing chicken-demon before. We're going to need more rope. Also a bigger cart." Can take on dragons and 9-headed pyrohydras by himself.

Level 15: Kyoraku and Starrk. Kyoraku for a swordsman-type, Starrk for a ranged-type. (Although tbh, Bleach is kindof a bad reference because of the varying power levels, those two episodes kinda represent what I mean). Has taken down BBEGs in the past, and can single-handedly kill an full-grown dragon (who has sorcerer casting, flight, status-affecting breath-weapons, etc in addition to massive strength and more attacks per round)

Level 20: I don't know any examples for this. At this level, a fighter can take on a Tarrasque or Balor (which has crazy-powerful abilities) by himself. He's basically unkillable. Maybe the Ginyu force, for unarmed fighters, would work.

Btw, IMO the Ginyu Force was the last credible threat in DBZ before power levels went off the rails.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

When a fighter needs to be decked out in magical items to compete, it bothers me. I think a 'guy who kills stuff with a melee weapon' should be able to eviscerate you with a spoon at high levels, with his Vorpal Sword just gravy rather than necessary for his success.

So, ToB and 4e are both good examples of what Fighters should be, to me. They have interesting and powerful abilities at their disposal, and can effectively kill enemies, protect their allies, and not die.

If you're going into the crazy demon-binding, scry-and-fry, world-shattering levels with the druid, cleric, and wizard, I think Fighters should have a similar curve. Let them leap hundreds of feet, decapitate a dozen enemies with a single strike, or shrug off super rays of death. Don't just leave them behind.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Well, I agree, Fighter should not be a class, but a group of classes, like the Duelist, the Juggernaut, the Weapon Master, and so forth.

But to avoid skirting the question, he should be the colonel badass of the badass marines. With no magic, and only a couple of magic trinkets I think all adventurers should get (I don't believe in the Christmas trees, but I think it's not an unfair assumption that by level 10 everyone should have, say, one magic weapon or piece of armour, and a small Wondrous Item with a minor but useful effect), he kicks ass.

He gets dogpiled by a squad of gnolls with claws and fangs and knives, and comes out covered in blood... theirs. He holds up his shield against a dragon's fire and it deflects around both sides of him. He, by higher levels, can walk into a tavern and even without his chosen weapon and armour, is punching out the whole bar and wielding chair legs with ease. He's dueling Balors atop cliffs in the heart of the Abyss, effortlessly side-stepping magic assaults and parrying flaming swords with his own fairly mundane one. He's kicking in doors with such force that the door takes out a couple of armed guards even before he draws his sword to outfight the whole room.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by obryn

If your Fighter archetype is only as deep as "dude with a sword" I'd have to say it meets the archetype nicely.

-O

Except in this case it's more of "Sword with a dude" because the Sword is providing the majority of the power. Shiny equipment is nice, but unless it is the main focus of the class, should not overshadow your class features.

Like I could get behind an Artificer class as Iron Man, that builds his own hyper-powerful and even intelligent magic items. It's a cool concept, and has a lot of potential. I can't get behind the idea of instead of having a guy create his own items, he is expected to buy them or find them randomly, and still have those items be his defining feature. It's the difference between Iron Man and War Machine. Iron Man is a hero, War Machine is just a sidekick. A PC class should not be the sidekick.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I have read PF's archetypes. They don't solve the problem any more than 3.5's ACFs do (although I can't deny that convincing the DM to let me change a greataxe into a hammer and being a Dungeoncrasher Fighter feels different from the typical charger).

I think something like this would be good for removing the genericky stuff from fighter, and wizard, and those other classes.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by Seerow

Except in this case it's more of "Sword with a dude" because the Sword is providing the majority of the power. Shiny equipment is nice, but unless it is the main focus of the class, should not overshadow your class features.

Yeah, there was some sarcasm in my post.

Fighters should be defined by their awesomeness at fighting, not their equipment. I think both Warblades (if you're doing 3.5) and 4e Fighters both nail the concept.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I'm looking, and I see a class which is still deeply inadequate, both in terms of having interesting abilities and in terms of being an effective presence, in a system that still thinks melee can't have nice things. But you know what? Let's not just leave this point up in the air, we can go somewhere with this. Evidence is required.

Here are two particular insulting examples, the Mobile Fighter and Tactician Archetypes (insulting in the sense that they should be valid sort of character, but because this is PF, they aren't).

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Mobile Fighter Archetype

At 2nd level, a mobile fighter gains a +1 bonus on saving throws made against effects that cause him to become paralyzed, slowed, or entangled. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd.

Oh, look, more numbers. Because that's what the fighter needed.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Mobile Fighter Archetype

At 5th level, when a mobile fighter moves at least 5 feet prior to attacking, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th.

So this is just the ability it replaced but only usable with this variant's crappy abilities, I guess?

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Mobile Fighter Archetype

At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full-attack action with a single move. He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus but may take the remaining attacks at any point during his movement. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.

Oh, look, an ability so bad it may as well not even exist.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Mobile Fighter Archetype

At 15th level, the mobile fighter’s speed increases by 10 feet. He can take 10 on Acrobatics checks even while distracted or threatened, and can take 20 on an Acrobatics check once per day for every five fighter levels he possesses.

... I don't even know how to respond to this. +10 move speed, take 10, and occasionally take 20. At level 15. What is this I don't even

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Mobile Fighter Archetype

At 20th level, a mobile fighter can make a full-attack action as a standard action. He may also use the Whirlwind Attack feat as a standard action.

Yes, well, things that should be standard to pretty much everybody being presented as capstones for a crappy variant class? That pretty much makes my point for me.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

A tactician gains 4 skill points + a number of skill points equal to his Intelligence modifier at each level, instead of the normal 2 skill points + Intelligence modifier at each level. Furthermore, Diplomacy (Cha), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Linguistics (Int), and Sense Motive (Wis) are all class skills for the tactician.

This is actually pretty cool! Which is why it's setting us up for disappointment.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

A tactician may choose Skill Focus or any teamwork feat, in addition to Combat Feats, as bonus feats.

So, the fighter's signature non-ability is slightly more versatile. Uh, okay. That's good I guess.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

At 2nd level, a tactician gains a +1 bonus on initiative checks. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels after 2nd level (to a maximum of +5 at 18th level).

Well, numbers, but at least they're somewhat unusual numbers. So that's at least an improvement. Still boring, though.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

At 5th level, a tactician gains this ability as the cavalier class feature. He may use this ability once per day at 5th level, plus one additional time for every five levels after 5th (to a maximum of four times at 20th level). If the tactician also has cavalier levels, these levels stack for determining the number of uses per day, and he can take the better progression.

Another bonus feat, and an ability which lets you waste your standard action. Joy.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

At 11th level, when a tactician uses the aid another special attack, he may affect one additional ally per point of Intelligence bonus. For each ally that a tactician aids, he can pick whether to grant that ally the +2 bonus on its next attack against the opponent or the +2 bonus to AC against the opponent’s next attack on that ally, and can grant different allies different bonuses.

Another waste of a standard action! Wooooooo.

Originally Posted by PFSRD, Tactician Archetype

At 15th level, as a swift action, a tactician can grant his Intelligence modifier as an insight bonus on the attack rolls made by a single ally within line of sight that can both see and hear the tactician. That ally gains the bonus until the end of the tactician’s next turn. The tactician can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Intelligence modifier.

Yet another case of too little, too late.

These abilities are generally well-balanced against what the PF fighter already has, of course, and therein lies the problem. What the default fighter has is so generic that it has to be meaningless, and so whatever ACFs are supplied to it have to be insultingly bad by relation. The draw of this is that no, alternate class features are not enough to make a fighter class distinct, or interesting, because the fighter has to be distinct and interesting to start with.

And if the fighter has to be distinct and interesting to start with, than we get back to the basic problem — that "fighter" is an absurdly broad concept, one that is necessarily bad because it has no idea what it actually is (and neither does anyone writing it).

Last edited by gkathellar; 2012-09-28 at 01:55 PM.

Originally Posted by KKL

D&D is its own momentum and does its own fantasy. It emulates itself in an incestuous mess.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I'm just gonna put this out there, but fighter isn't a huge concept to me for two reaasons:

1:) type of weapon shouldn't be an entirely different class.
-- why should my axe guy be so different from sword guy? both are strong melee fighter guys.

2:) D&D bias, but if you're ranged, your not a fighter, if you are sneaky and backstab, you're a rogue, if you're divine you're a paladin.

This doesn't mean you can't have nice things -- you should be the best at what you do because you're specialized at kicking ass in melee with weapons. But a Master of Arms is what a Fighter is, not 'oh, a halberd? I have seven feats sunk into using a glaive, so can't use this halberd.'

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by psiclone57

This doesn't mean you can't have nice things -- you should be the best at what you do because you're specialized at kicking ass in melee with weapons. But a Master of Arms is what a Fighter is, not 'oh, a halberd? I have seven feats sunk into using a glaive, so can't use this halberd.'

If Master At Arms is what you think a fighter should be, than why should it be called Fighter instead of Master At Arms, since the second of those is what it actually is? And what happens when someone does want to build a specialist with a particular weapon, is that just not possible? Or do we need another class for that? What about when they want their fighter to be built around battlefield cunning, instead, or pure mental focus? There's a reason people are typically happy with barbarian as a separate class — rage is a big concept, a major stylistic choice. It deserves individual attention, and so do other concepts.

The issue is that the styles of play, imagery, and mechanical concepts people envision for a "fighter" vary to a degree that makes the class doomed to fail. This goes beyond just "how do I shot sword" vs. "how do I shot axe," into questions of exactly what you want the class to be doing from round to round. And if the answer is "auto-attacking," then the fighter will still suck and still be boring.

Last edited by gkathellar; 2012-09-28 at 02:24 PM.

Originally Posted by KKL

D&D is its own momentum and does its own fantasy. It emulates itself in an incestuous mess.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by psiclone57

1:) type of weapon shouldn't be an entirely different class.
-- why should my axe guy be so different from sword guy? both are strong melee fighter guys.

Axes are very different from swords. Swords are precision weapons, from the long dagger to the English Longsword. Axes are what you use to get around shields (the blade protrudes outward, therefore they get a few inches over a sword when it comes to getting around shields), get through armor (swords, you thrust into the weaker or unprotected joints. Axes, hammers, and maces all just deliver crushing blows), and are generally a sort of cross between sword and hammer. Also, they're better at chopping down trees, so they're useful for setting up a base in a forest. Now, give the shield a spade shape, and put a slot in the bottom with a hole for a rivet, and get a pole fitted for it also with a hole for a rivet, and you've got a way to set up earth-and-wood defenses just using your basic war gear.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

I just think you shouldn't need to specialize in one type of polearm if you're character's class is guy who fights with melee weapons. Especially when we compare that to a guy who's class is magic powers and animal shape and animal companions and ...

Or how about "I can cast illusions and compulsions, and am good at stealth and social skills."

Compare those to "I can pick one trick and specialize with that to an absurd degree. It becomes my only trick, and if my enemy is immune to it for some reason (trip master vs ooze?) I am worthless"

My argument is the opposite of yours. You feel the Fighter is too generic? I think it is too specialized. Why shouldn't you be able to trip, sunder, disarm, charge, push and strategize? That doesn't sound like more than one class to me.

The dumb fighter is a Barbarian. Roy is a Fighter.

EDIT at ^
Of course in real life it is different to use a sword than use an axe. But that's like saying my necromancer should only be able to use animate dead.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

See the problem is that Fighters are too generic AND too specialized at the same time.

They are very generic in that their main schtick is "Fighting with mundane weapons". This is extremely broad and can potentially swallow every non-magical class in the game. This means there are dozens of potential concepts you can apply to it, each of which are fairly different.

On the other hand, they are very specialized, in that "Fighting with mundane weapons" by itself is a very limited thing. You can hit stuff in melee, or you can hit stuff from range. Occasionally you can do something like push the enemy, or trip them. This is typically the sort of thing that gets accomplished by a single spell, and not even necessarily a high level one.

You can try to support the Fighter by embracing the broad concepts of Fighters, but rather than trying to make them specialize, let them be all of those things at once. Yes, my Fighter is a highly mobile swashbuckler, an amazing Archer, a stalward Knight, and a Leader of Men. Basically you have the Fighter go down the list of every mundane archtype, see what is acceptable for them to have, and give it as an option to the Fighter. Let him learn as many as he wants with downtime, much like a Wizard learns spells.

Going this route basically acknowledges how limited mundane characters really are when placed next to magic. Even when doing this, you're going to end up with a Fighter with a bunch of abilities roughly equivalent with 2 or 3 schools of magic, and that's assuming you are willing to embrace the Warlord style powers for him. The question is if at this point what you have is even a Fighter anymore. He is basically a Mundane Paragon. He embodies every martial class ever, because doing so is what it takes to compete with magic.

The other route is to, as suggested, break up the Fighter into subclasses, getting rid of the Fighter and instead have each of those concepts as their own unique class. Going this route, you'll have a bunch of radically underpowered very specialized classes, unless you are willing to let them have supernatural abilities within their niche. Even this is probably going to leave you with a bunch of tier 4 classes, because while you are letting the mundanes leave the mundane, you are still running with the idea of a bunch of specialized classes. Luckily, most of these specialized classes are a bit more broad than "Fighter" in terms of out of combat utility, so will fare a little bit better there.

The best route though, is honestly probably saying "Mundane classes last to level 6. Once you hit level 7, you must multi-class into something that isn't mundane" and being done with it.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

As the game is currently set up, I agree with you. But, I don't feel that it should be this way.

I just think as the game progresses to pass the mundanes, they should be enhanced to keep up. Quadratic Fighters, as it were.

We're fighting flying incorporeal creatures intent on raining down magical attacks? Here are my options: Leap up and cut through their incorporealness, cut a hole in the wall for an escape route, focus on deflecting / reflecting their magical attacks, etc. That is flavorful, has an ancient folklore (Greek mythology, Epic of Gilgamesh) / anime precedent, and keeps the Fighter from becoming obsolete.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Originally Posted by psiclone57

EDIT at ^
Of course in real life it is different to use a sword than use an axe. But that's like saying my necromancer should only be able to use animate dead.

I didn't say he couldn't use a sword. I just think he'd get some bonuses for using hafted non-polearm weapons. A 15th level Brute can pick up a sword and lay waste to armies, but he's less effective in a duel against an equal level martial character.

And being good with only one type of polearm is also overspecialized. A polearm guy is equally effective with a glaive, naginata, and guisarme, although only the last one lets him trip from a distance.

Fighting classes should be good with one group of weapons, and decent with everything else. I think armor should be the same way. Also whether he uses a shield or not.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Personally, I disagree with you, but only because of game balance reasons. If you find a magic Dwarven Craghammer in a dungeon and you're normally a human axe guy, I think its lame to be punished for using the new weapon. Especially because for the most part, if your Invoker finds a Divination scroll in the same loot, he'll be able to use it with virtually no penalties. (maybe the Dc is slightly lower)

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

Obviously a fighter should be a character that is highly skilled in combat. I would dare say a fighter should be the best at fighting. But unfortunately that’s not really the case.

In order for the fighter to be the best at fighting he needs to be able to perform well in combat. What I mean is that combat should come easily to the class. He needs to have combat options, be it in TOB psudo-magic, 4E powers, or whathaveyou. To put it simply a fighter needs to be versatile .

For example dnd 3.5 offers several combat maneuvers (not to be confused with TOB maneuvers), I’m talking about bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip etc. These maneuvers give the fighter a fair bit of options, but they are [i] difficult [i/] to perform. Therefore a fighter either spends his limited resources on making himself ok at doing those maneuvers, or he focuses on basic attacks and the now classic power attack (being mathematically the best option available, but this quickly becomes feat intensive). This is not good for the fighter because he does not have the options to actually be strong in combat. His options are few, too resource intensive, and too focused on one thing. In effect, a fighter is either very good at one thing (a one trick pony), or mediocre at everything.

Now 4E almost had this problem fixed, what with the power system and all. But the encounter/at will/ daily system really did ruin it. Because instead of it being versatile, it was really routine oriented, and not exactly what I had hoped for when I first got to mess around with the system.

Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?

As the game is currently set up, I agree with you. But, I don't feel that it should be this way.

I just think as the game progresses to pass the mundanes, they should be enhanced to keep up. Quadratic Fighters, as it were.

We're fighting flying incorporeal creatures intent on raining down magical attacks? Here are my options: Leap up and cut through their incorporealness, cut a hole in the wall for an escape route, focus on deflecting / reflecting their magical attacks, etc. That is flavorful, has an ancient folklore (Greek mythology, Epic of Gilgamesh) / anime precedent, and keeps the Fighter from becoming obsolete.

I agree with this.

I think that being a fighter should open a range of possibilities which reflect the complexities and physicality of what we read and see in fiction with mundane yet skilled fighters.

Fighting should have a depth in its own right -- more Shadow Of The Colossus or Legend of Zelda with the player sorting out how to best react to the situation than World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy where you occasionally toggle skills to break up the monotony of spamming attacks. I personally don't care about feeling powerful, I just want to be challenged and have useful skills which allow me to meet those challenges in a variety of ways with more options being added on as you conquer each experience.